At its recent meeting, the USPA Board approved a new Basic Safety Requirement that applies a minimum age requirement to all skydiving equipment. Now, all skydives must be made in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirement for each component used for the jump, including the main and reserve canopies, harness and container, automatic activation device and accessories. This requirement was previously only applied to tandem equipment. According to the Parachute Industry Association, whose representatives brought this request to the USPA Board, all of the U.S. equipment manufacturers that PIA represents require users of their equipment to be the age of legal majority. -USPA Update

Is this really a problem in the industry that needs addressing? And who's it protecting? It the USPA wanted to protect it's self they could have simply made the minimum age of membership to be 18 years old.

THis serves to protect DZO's and is one more indication of the focus of the BOD.

Where's the wingloading guideline BSR? Where is the camera use BSR? What is really going on?

The gear manufacturers. It lets them set a minimum age so they're less likely to pay civil suit damages when an underage person hurts themselves and sues.

There's nothing to stop them from doing that WITHOUT the USPA. Put it on the warning label and the user's manual. "Hey you need to be XX years old before you use this." Works for other human conditions like weight.

At its recent meeting, the USPA Board approved a new Basic Safety Requirement that applies a minimum age requirement to all skydiving equipment. Now, all skydives must be made in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirement for each component used for the jump, including the main and reserve canopies, harness and container, automatic activation device and accessories. This requirement was previously only applied to tandem equipment. According to the Parachute Industry Association, whose representatives brought this request to the USPA Board, all of the U.S. equipment manufacturers that PIA represents require users of their equipment to be the age of legal majority. -USPA Update

The motion was: Add to section 2-1.D [Age Requirements] 2. All skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer's age requirements for each component of the parachute, harness and container, AAD and accessories used for that jump.

- delete section SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)

This section [SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)] read: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."

The age requirements are on the user of the equipment, not on the equipment itself.

The new BSR is a generalization of the previous BSR in two directions. 1. It goes from student tandem jumps to all jumps. 2. It goes from tandem equipment to 'each component of the parachute, harness and container, AAD and accessories used for that jump'.

The new BSR also reiterates common USPA recommendations that say: ~follow the manufacturer's instructions, guidance and requirements

USPA is not setting any user age requirements. The mfg may or may not do that. Some of them are doing that now. All USPA is saying is to 'do what the mfg says to do.'

At its recent meeting, the USPA Board approved a new Basic Safety Requirement that applies a minimum age requirement to all skydiving equipment. Now, all skydives must be made in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirement for each component used for the jump, including the main and reserve canopies, harness and container, automatic activation device and accessories. This requirement was previously only applied to tandem equipment. According to the Parachute Industry Association, whose representatives brought this request to the USPA Board, all of the U.S. equipment manufacturers that PIA represents require users of their equipment to be the age of legal majority. -USPA Update

Quote:

USPA is not setting any user age requirements. The mfg may or may not do that. Some of them are doing that now. All USPA is saying is to 'do what the mfg says to do.'

Thank you for that clarification, MIH.

I have visited PIA's website, but can't distinguish between those U.S. manufacturers PIA "represents", and those manufacturers who have a relationship of another nature with PIA.

What could possibly be the mindset for this BSR? It protects only a very small portion of the membership (if the manufacturers are members) and it exposes the USPA to the chain of liability.

This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.

If some lawsuit is filed that claims Junior Jumper jumped abc equipment and that equipment had a user age restriction, then USPA can be dismissed from the lawsuit easier because USPA has a BSR that says 'follow what the mfg says about user age restrictions.'

For most of the equipment out in the field today this BSR has no effect since there are no user age restrictions on most existing equipment. There are a couple of mfgs that have recently (within the last year or so) put in user age restrictions. This only applies to that equipment and any equipment in the future that may have a mfg imposed user age restriction.

What could possibly be the mindset for this BSR? It protects only a very small portion of the membership (if the manufacturers are members) and it exposes the USPA to the chain of liability.

This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.

If some lawsuit is filed that claims Junior Jumper jumped abc equipment and that equipment had a user age restriction, then USPA can be dismissed from the lawsuit easier because USPA has a BSR that says 'follow what the mfg says about user age restrictions.'

For most of the equipment out in the field today this BSR has no effect since there are no user age restrictions on most existing equipment. There are a couple of mfgs that have recently (within the last year or so) put in user age restrictions. This only applies to that equipment and any equipment in the future that may have a mfg imposed user age restriction.

.

Weak argument at best.

The manufacturers have stepped into the world of the non-student jumper. A 19 year-old jumper who buys gear in CA cannot legally jump it in the state of MS, and somehow the gear manufacturers have pawned off to USPA the responsibility of enforcing their rules to protect them. This does nothing to keep USPA out of a lawsuit because it would be easy to demonstrate how unenforceable it is.

This is a BLR... Basic Liability Restructuring and does not belong in the BSRs.

And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.

And there is no way to know what components have what age restrictions. So, a DZ may be letting someone break a BSR without knowing it, then when there is a problem, the DZ is hung out to dry for not enforcing a BSR.

I agree with you Craig and viamently opposed this BSR. The problem is we now gave all of the power to every component manufacturer to determine the age of a US skydiver. There was absolutely no statistical data to support getting involved in this.

What really happend was last meeting we argued for hours upon hours about the Tandem age requirement. After exhausting efforts and problems we decided to make it a BSR to follow age requirements for Tandem jumps ONLY!!! The manufactureres (Ted, Bill) wanted this for all jumps and we rejected it for AFF, IAD, Static line, only giving in to tandems. Arguably the highest liability risk to them. Now 6 monthes later they came back to us wanting the full monty again and we crumbled. So for the history of USPA a 16 year old could get certified via one of several methods and go on to compete at the highest level and now that is gone. Unless they use a rig and components that do not have an age requirement.

This did not make sense to me, rather we should have made the camera 200 jump requirement a BSR. I was really outvoted on that one. Some even suggested 25 jumps, A license as a recommendation. Rich Winstock

What you don't think there is any risk in Cessna, piper or schweizer being sued in any sailplane operations if little 14 yr old johnny crashes on his solo or other flights.

Sorry it's lame as hell for USPA to be passing this type of BSR, knocking out under age tandems is one thing, changing how a great deal of us learned to jump is another, there is no reason a 16 yr old can't SL or AFF, in fact I bet the records will show very few have ever sued after the fact once they turned 18 or 19 in some states.

Also its kind of funny that some of those who have been bitching the loudest have had no problem taking their own underage kids on tandem jumps... guess it's a do as we say and not as we do kind of thing.

What could possibly be the mindset for this BSR? It protects only a very small portion of the membership (if the manufacturers are members) and it exposes the USPA to the chain of liability.

This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.

If some lawsuit is filed that claims Junior Jumper jumped abc equipment and that equipment had a user age restriction, then USPA can be dismissed from the lawsuit easier because USPA has a BSR that says 'follow what the mfg says about user age restrictions.'

For most of the equipment out in the field today this BSR has no effect since there are no user age restrictions on most existing equipment. There are a couple of mfgs that have recently (within the last year or so) put in user age restrictions. This only applies to that equipment and any equipment in the future that may have a mfg imposed user age restriction.

.

Weak argument at best.

The manufacturers have stepped into the world of the non-student jumper. A 19 year-old jumper who buys gear in CA cannot legally jump it in the state of MS, and somehow the gear manufacturers have pawned off to USPA the responsibility of enforcing their rules to protect them. This does nothing to keep USPA out of a lawsuit because it would be easy to demonstrate how unenforceable it is.

This is a BLR... Basic Liability Restructuring and does not belong in the BSRs.

And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.

And there is no way to know what components have what age restrictions. So, a DZ may be letting someone break a BSR without knowing it, then when there is a problem, the DZ is hung out to dry for not enforcing a BSR.

This is wrong on soooo many levels.

top

Exactly!

We discussed this on the board 4 years ago and the wisdom at the time was that it was a bad idea, and the majority of the board was against it.

I wonder what changed?

No more BSR's! We have enough already and many are either ignored or not enforced at all.

As this action clearly demonstrates it is not too difficult to enact a new BSR. But, once in place they are next to impossible to revoke. If I am not mistaken that has never happened.

Now if the BOD were REALLY worried about that they'd drop the GM program because OUR (USPA) endorsement of DZ's by allowing them to be Group Members is what exposes US to the liability in the first place ESPECIALLY when the BOD sit's on it's hands in the event of DZ's (and members) who flagrantly violate BSR/FAR's

And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.

Yeah, that really worries me too.

The retroactive thing is especially scary. If we buy a PD reserve, we know about the check boxes; if we buy a Strong Tandem, we know about the mandatory inspections and finite life. But at least we know the rules when we buy the equipment.

To a great degree we already have a system where companies can ban anything, anytime, retroactively, because we already have a system where riggers must follow manufacturers' instructions.

A company wants 10 year old rigs off the market? Update the instruction manual so that the rig has a 10 year life.

Now we do debate that: Some will say that if a TSO'd rig was delivered with manual version 1.1, nothing other than the FAA revoking the TSO or issuing an AD can ever change it being legal to rig and use according to that manual that first came with the rig. But that's certainly not the unanimous opinion, and many riggers aren't going to go against what they see in the latest manual!

This new BSR is another way for a company to do stop equipment from being used: Put out a manual saying only those 90 years or older can jump a certain rig.

But now the manufacturers' power is clearly extended to non-TSO'd components too, like main canopies.

A company like Pioneer Aerospace no longer sells to sport skydivers. It would cost them no real market if they said that those old civilian ParaCommanders are grounded, unless jumped by 90 year olds.

Companies won't try to piss off too many of their customers, but all this is still an area where the company has absolute power to determine who uses their products and how -- for reasons unrelated to actual safety (e.g. TSO'd speed tests).

What could possibly be the mindset for this BSR? It protects only a very small portion of the membership (if the manufacturers are members) and it exposes the USPA to the chain of liability.

This gets USPA out of the liability issue of under-age jumpers.

If some lawsuit is filed that claims Junior Jumper jumped abc equipment and that equipment had a user age restriction, then USPA can be dismissed from the lawsuit easier because USPA has a BSR that says 'follow what the mfg says about user age restrictions.'

For most of the equipment out in the field today this BSR has no effect since there are no user age restrictions on most existing equipment. There are a couple of mfgs that have recently (within the last year or so) put in user age restrictions. This only applies to that equipment and any equipment in the future that may have a mfg imposed user age restriction.

.

Weak argument at best.

The manufacturers have stepped into the world of the non-student jumper. A 19 year-old jumper who buys gear in CA cannot legally jump it in the state of MS, and somehow the gear manufacturers have pawned off to USPA the responsibility of enforcing their rules to protect them. This does nothing to keep USPA out of a lawsuit because it would be easy to demonstrate how unenforceable it is.

This is a BLR... Basic Liability Restructuring and does not belong in the BSRs.

And the way this is worded, ANY manufacturer is free to retroactively put ANY age restriction on ANY gear-user jumping gear in ANY way on ANY skydive.

And there is no way to know what components have what age restrictions. So, a DZ may be letting someone break a BSR without knowing it, then when there is a problem, the DZ is hung out to dry for not enforcing a BSR.

This is wrong on soooo many levels.

top

Concur.

And yes, isn't it interesting that this BOD member justified the creation of a new Basic SAFETY Requirement not in terms of safety but in terms of liability?

Isn't it also interesting that USPA has, in fact, expanded the size of the lawsuit target to include all DZs, instructors, coaches and ST&As who, knowingly or unknowingly, permit a user-age component violation to occur on their watch?

According to your excerpt and English Sentence Structure 101, the age requirements are, in fact, not on the user of the equipment, but on the equipment itself.

English Sentence Structure 101: The subject of the sentence is "tandem system" -- not "user," "passenger" or "student."

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, at least be correct. The subject of the sentence is "skydives". Everything else is an object of a prepositional phrase.

The statement isn't really that open for interpretation, but it is vague and does give the manufacturer a lot of leeway as has been stated in previous postings. Based on this requirement, the manufacture could say "the skydive could not be performed if it is capable of being witnessed on the ground by somebody under the age of 30."

Every vote the BOD makes should be reported "by name". We as the membership have the right to know who's voting and which way. All a BOD member needs to do when the cast a vote is to say "By name" to have it recorded in the minutes.

"USPA’s Executive Committee took action yesterday, March 6, to delay implementation of a new Basic Safety Requirement that would have required all skydivers to comply with any minimum age requirements set by a parachute equipment or component manufacturer for any users of its equipment. Many, if not most, manufacturers want to require that any users of their parachute equipment be at least the age of legal majority for liability reasons. By interim action, the Executive Committee set the implementation date for this new BSR as October 1, 2012, unless further modified by the full board of directors at its August 3-5 meeting in Minneapolis. This delay will provide another opportunity for the board to discuss all the ramifications of the new rule at the summer meeting, as well to gather and consider member input. Please feel free to contact USPA Headquarters or any member of the board of directors with your input to this BSR."

Not true. The executive committee has tabled the implementation of the age requirement to after the next meeting to allow for more discussion.

This was initiated by Randy Allison and has my full support. If I would have remembered I would have voted by name but I think if you speak to any BOD member you will see I was completely opposed to this from committee on through full BOD. Randy, Craig Stapleton, and Gary Peek should be commended on standing firm on there beliefs regarding this decision.

I had many many reasons for my stance and would be happy to share them if you want to ring me.

Not true. The executive committee has tabled the implementation of the age requirement to after the next meeting to allow for more discussion.

This was initiated by Randy Allison and has my full support. If I would have remembered I would have voted by name but I think if you speak to any BOD member you will see I was completely opposed to this from committee on through full BOD. Randy, Craig Stapleton, and Gary Peek should be commended on standing firm on there beliefs regarding this decision.

I had many many reasons for my stance and would be happy to share them if you want to ring me.

Your voice is heard and represented I promise.

Not picking a direct fight with you, but you're the one answering questions though, so you get the heat, sort of.

I think my point about the %'s may have been unclear. The BSR passed, it had to have at least the 51 % to do so (I do not know the bi-laws actual % required). But so many BOD members are saying privately they are in the "Opposed Vote Camp", if so then that the BSR proposal could not have even made it out of committee.

My opinion should not matter, I am no longer a member. I do not see a reason to change that status at the moment.

But, to beat on the horse as it has its last breath, You say my opinion mattered, it was the same, as what appears to be, as what the majority of the membership feels on numerous topics, yet, I felt the opinion meant nothing and the BOD was self serving, not membership serving.

It is y'all's ship to sail, I got off at the last port, unnoticed but by a few.

To the best of my recollection which isn't the best. Myself and Jesse Farrington on Safety and Training were definitely NO. There was a third but I do not recall who it was. S&T consists of: Todd Spillers Tony Thacker Sherry Butcher Merriah Eakins Jesse Farrington Mike Mullins (not present this meeting) Myself.

To the best of my recollection which isn't the best. Myself and Jesse Farrington on Safety and Training were definitely NO. There was a third but I do not recall who it was. S&T consists of: Todd Spillers Tony Thacker Sherry Butcher Merriah Eakins Jesse Farrington Mike Mullins (not present this meeting) Myself.

Out of 7 members, 1 was not present, 3 voted no, 3 voted yes, how is that a majority vote?

You ask a great question. I do not want to give the wrong answer, so let me reach out to confirm before I make myself look stupid. I am pretty sure Mike Mullins will know the ins and outs of it.

Also, it is was my understanding that the TSO of the rig has a plays an important role. In fact speaking to Ted Strong, he told me at the last meeting that he was goin gto change the TSO to include age.

Maybe I'm being a bit simple-minded, but the BSR's already require us to follow FAR's, and the FAR's require users of equipment to follow the manufacturer's terms of use.

Doesn't that mean if a manufacturer places an age restriction on the use of its gear that we are already obligated by the BSR's to abide by it?

Where does it say that the manufacturer can specify the "terms of use"? The FARs only specify that tandems be "maintained" per manufacturer's instructions.

The new BSR seems to empower all manufacturers, not just tandems, to specify age limits for their gear.

Can you think of any other sport or activity in which a minimum age limit is mandated by the manufacturer?

Not off hand, but I can also not think of a sport so small and sued for such high numbers. You could say what about dirt bikes, the manufacturer is huge compared to skydiving and has millions in sales quarterly.

The Manufacturers would not be in this position of they, their users and the national body had all agreed to enforce the rules they had in place. They got lazy, let things go "this one time", time, and time again. Now they have to put their foot down, and in so doing press the feet of others to the fire.

Also, it is was my understanding that the TSO of the rig has a plays an important role. In fact speaking to Ted Strong, he told me at the last meeting that he was goin gto change the TSO to include age.

I don't think that's possible, at least, it better not be.

How would it be if aircraft manufacturers could suddenly change their Type Certificate Data Sheets to prohibit pilots under the age of consent from flying their aircraft?

Not off hand, but I can also not think of a sport so small and sued for such high numbers. You could say what about dirt bikes, the manufacturer is huge compared to skydiving and has millions in sales quarterly.

The Manufacturers would not be in this position of they, their users and the national body had all agreed to enforce the rules they had in place. They got lazy, let things go "this one time", time, and time again. Now they have to put their foot down, and in so doing press the feet of others to the fire.

Do you actually have any numbers to support that, or is your imagination running away with you?

Your analogy to the size of the sport is not valid. Bicycle manufacturers may sell thousands upon thousands of bicycles intended for use by children for just a few hundred dollars but their liablility is not proportional to the purchase price, however, their liability exposure grows proportionally with each bicycle sold.

Do you really want to spend $5,000 dollars, on a product your life depends on, from manufacturers who have done everything they can to limit use of the product to just the people least likely to win a lawsuit? There's something unethical, or at least fishy, about that!

Not off hand, but I can also not think of a sport so small and sued for such high numbers. You could say what about dirt bikes, the manufacturer is huge compared to skydiving and has millions in sales quarterly.

The Manufacturers would not be in this position of they, their users and the national body had all agreed to enforce the rules they had in place. They got lazy, let things go "this one time", time, and time again. Now they have to put their foot down, and in so doing press the feet of others to the fire.

Do you actually have any numbers to support that, or is your imagination running away with you?

Your analogy to the size of the sport is not valid. Bicycle manufacturers may sell thousands upon thousands of bicycles intended for use by children for just a few hundred dollars but their liablility is not proportional to the purchase price, however, their liability exposure grows proportionally with each bicycle sold.

Do you really want to spend $5,000 dollars, on a product your life depends on, from manufacturers who have done everything they can to limit use of the product to just the people least likely to win a lawsuit? There's something unethical, or at least fishy, about that!

Dirt Bikes means Motorcycle in my world, sorry if that confused you. Now in that context it should make sense.

For the last 12 years as a T-I and I/E, I have watched the whole group previously named do exactly what I said.

Now they are in a corner and have to act.

If it was not in the US, it would not be an issue, but it is what it is. The US has litigated itself through lack of personal accountability to this position and manufacturers have to take actions.

So no my imagination is not running wild. There are thread after thread and incident report after incident report full of data to back the Manufacturers decision up.

Yes, I understood that you were talking about motorcycles, I used bicycles as a different example. Now regarding motorcycles, have the manufacturers stopped making and selling motorcycles and ATVs for kids? The answer is No!

My question about whether you had any numbers was in reference to skydiving lawsuits which you claim, "I can also not think of a sport so small and sued for such high numbers."

The truth of the matter is that skydiving lawsuits are rare, and the vast majority of them are dismissed before trial. The Parachute Center in Lodi has been sued three times since 2000, the first two were dismissed, and Parachute Center won the third one; yet, there have been 7+ fatalities there in the last ten years.

And how many equipment manufacturers have lost or settled lawsuits in the past ten years? I'm sorry but there is no crisis of litigation that is threatening the sport or the manufacturers no matter how much you want to believe it so you can hate on the United States judicial system.

The BSR before the BOD is nothing but a preemptive power grab by PIA and the manufacturers to manipulate USPA, and its members, for their own self-serving purposes. You can't blame the lawyers or the courts for this one; it's the manufacturers that are deliberately doing it to the sport.

Maybe I'm being a bit simple-minded, but the BSR's already require us to follow FAR's, and the FAR's require users of equipment to follow the manufacturer's terms of use.

Doesn't that mean if a manufacturer places an age restriction on the use of its gear that we are already obligated by the BSR's to abide by it?

Where does it say that the manufacturer can specify the "terms of use"? The FARs only specify that tandems be "maintained" per manufacturer's instructions.

The new BSR seems to empower all manufacturers, not just tandems, to specify age limits for their gear.

Can you think of any other sport or activity in which a minimum age limit is mandated by the manufacturer?

The BSR's do not empower the manufacturers. The manufacturers have the ultimate power over the use of their gear to begin with.

The FAA dictates that the manufacturer of any equipment - parachutes, airplanes, parts, mods, accessories, or anything else - controls the use of that product first and foremost. Regardless of what may be allowed otherwise, if the manufacturer of any given product restricts the use of that product, that restriction must be adhered to under the FAR's.

We are not on the top of the FAR food chain. Use and restrictions begin with the manufacturer, not with us or USPA's rulebook.

Yes, they do! Why does there need to be a BSR? Oh yeah, because the manufacturers cannot specify age limits on their gear through the FAA. So, by using the USPA as a choke-point then they have control over what the GM dropzones do, and, ultimately, what members using the dropzones do.

Yes, they do! Why does there need to be a BSR? Oh yeah, because the manufacturers cannot specify age limits on their gear through the FAA. So, by using the USPA as a choke-point then they have control over what the GM dropzones do, and, ultimately, what members using the dropzones do.

Can't help ya here, bro. You seem to believe that USPA's authority comes before that of the manufacturer's relationship with the FAA. If that's your truth I don't know what I can say.

This section [SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)] read: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."

The age requirements are on the user of the equipment, not on the equipment itself.

FAIL.

According to your excerpt and English Sentence Structure 101, the age requirements are, in fact, not on the user of the equipment, but on the equipment itself.

English Sentence Structure 101: The subject object of the sentence preposition is "tandem system" -- not "user," "passenger" or "student."

Thus this section -- as written, not intended -- specifically refers to the age of the tandem system being used, not to the users thereof.

Again, USPA and the manufacturers have now given lawyers a green light to go after any manufacturer fielding equipment that is not at least 18 years old.

LOL

Good job, BOD. Better do an EC emergency change and fix that. All you need to do is this:

[SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)]:

IS: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."

SHOULD BE: "(5) All tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific tandem manufacturer’s student/passenger age requirements for its tandem systems."

44

P.S. Helping the BOD fix its functionally illiterate sentence structure is in no way an endorsement of:

a) the concept of age restrictions generally; or

b) codifying manufacturer business practices into the operating rules and policies of a membership sporting association specifically.

I just don't want my organization going off an another dollar-eating skyride because its alleged leaders can't think straight during their meetings.

Kudos and congratulations to the USPA Executive Committee for heeding advice and walking this silliness back a few steps.

Few bureaucracies have leadership with the fortitude or foresight to not only admit they are (or even may) be wrong but to actually take concrete action to change course.

Naturally, we don't know how all this will come out at the next BOD meeting (to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, no one's life, liberty or gear is safe while our BOD is in session*), but the fact that the EC acted swiftly and decisively is a good sign, and they deserve our thanks.

Has the board consulted legal council about the legal exposure this may cause?

I don't see where we are protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits. If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?

I do see it adding a layer of inconsistency that could get the USPA drawn into lawsuits.

Picture this, lawsuit is brought against a canopy manufacturer who did not have a age restriction, maybe the whole system didn't have an age-restriction.

Personal injury lawyer makes a case that age requirements must be important to safety since many manufacturers set this age. USPA also has taken the position that age matters because they piggy back of the manufacturers and have a BSR.

Personal injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPA failed to keep the injured party safe.

Has the board consulted legal council about the legal exposure this may cause?

I don't see where we are protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits. If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?

I do see it adding a layer of inconsistency that could get the USPA drawn into lawsuits.

Picture this, lawsuit is brought against a canopy manufacturer who did not have a age restriction, maybe the whole system didn't have an age-restriction.

Personally injury lawyer makes a case that age requirements must be important to safety since many manufacturers set this age. USPA also has taken the position that age matters because they piggy back of the manufacturers and have a BSR.

Personally injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPA failed to keep the injured party safe.

Am I off base here?

No, you threw a strike. I wrote a story in the last issue of SKYDIVING about the legal ramifications of letting minors jump, and in a sidebar I examined the general legal climate surrounding any risky sporting activity.

One thing I found: When portable, anyone-can-use-them defibrillators showed up, many recreation centers did not get one because they were afraid of being sued if someone misused one, it didn't work as advertised, whatever.

Then someone sued a recreation center because it did NOT have one -- and the legal argument was pretty much exactly what you posited:

"Personal injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPAkeeping a defibrillator on-site, the center failed to keep the injured party safe."

The legal concept of which the USPA BOD seems to be wholly ignorant is "staying silent" on a given matter rather than establishing a position, the purpose of which is to avoid becoming entangled and/or targeted over that matter.

It really is Skyride all over again in that USPA is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and will most likely get bitten again and the membership (and the sport) will pay the price.

Hopefully, the EC's decisive action portends well for the full BOD cutting this streamer away at the next meeting, Ben Franklin's maxim notwithstanding.

If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?

Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport. The manufacturers in their self-serving view of the world are afraid of getting sued by a minor so they seek to manipulate USPA into eliminating all minors from the sport. It's just another example of big business playing big brother.

The underlying fact here is that the manufacturers cannot set an age limit on who uses their sporting equipment. They can set a recommendation, and they're trying to get the USPA to enforce it as a de facto restriction. It's not USPAs place to do that.

If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?

Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport. The manufacturers in their self-serving view of the world are afraid of getting sued by a minor so they seek to manipulate USPA into eliminating all minors from the sport. It's just another example of big business playing big brother.

The underlying fact here is that the manufacturers cannot set an age limit on who uses their sporting equipment. They can set a recommendation, and they're trying to get the USPA to enforce it as a de facto restriction. It's not USPAs place to do that.

Here's one of the first things you've said on this forum that I agree with! The exception to what you've written, is that a manufacturer MAY place an age restriction on the use of their equipment. People can choose to ignore it, and if injured will have been using it outside of manufacturer's recommendations, just as those who are jumping equipment over TSO limits are.

The only party that can effectively create such rules is the FAA. If the USPA puts this BSR back into effect, they only expose the organization to liability when (as history has shown) they fail to enforce and cause sanctions agains violators.

Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport.

IF they are a USPA member...if not then a BSR is meaningless to them

True, if the Manufacturers didn't have it as their rule too. But the number of under the age of majority is a not a big enough factor to impact solo sport rig sales.

Tandem Jumps is different. Which is why a few DZ's don't use US made gear for Tandem Ops. The DZ's that do, have the age of majority (mostly 18) as the Manufacturer directed minimum age to participate.

According to the Parachute Industry Association, whose representatives brought this request to the USPA Board, all of the U.S. equipment manufacturers that PIA represents require users of their equipment to be the age of legal majority.

Where have the manufacturers stated that? I looked around at a few and haven't found it.